U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Police in a Deadly Force Case

April 16, 2018 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz

In Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. ___, (2018), a §1983 civil rights lawsuit involving an officer’s use of deadly force, the United States Supreme Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate “clearly established law.”

The facts unfolded in May, in Tucson, Arizona, when officers responded to a 911 call reporting that “a woman was hacking a tree with a kitchen knife.” Initially, Officers Andrew Kisela and Alex Garcia responded to the call. As they approached the area, “the person who had called 911 flagged down the officers; gave them a description of the woman with the knife; and told them the woman had been acting erratically.” At about the same time, a third police officer arrived.

“Garcia spotted a woman, later identified as Sharon Chadwick, standing next to a car in the driveway of a nearby house. A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated Chadwick from the officers. The officers then saw another woman, [Amy] Hughes, emerge from the house carrying a large knife at her side.” Hughes matched the description of the report. “Hughes walked toward Chadwick and stopped no more than six feet from her.”

The officers drew their guns and at least twice told Hughes to drop the knife. Chadwick then said, “take it easy” to both Hughes and the officers. Hughes did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife. “The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s line of fire, so he dropped to the ground and shot Hughes four times through the fence. Then the officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics, who transported her to a hospital. There she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Less than a minute had transpired from the moment the officers saw Chadwick to the moment Kisela fired shots.”

After the shooting, the officers learned that “Chadwick and Hughes were roommates, that Hughes had a history of mental illness, and that Hughes had been upset with Chadwick over a $20 debt. . . . Chadwick said that a few minutes before the shooting her boyfriend had told her Hughes was threatening to kill Chadwick’s dog, named Bunny. Chadwick ‘came home to find’ Hughes ‘somewhat distressed,’ and Hughes was in the house holding Bunny ‘in one hand and a kitchen knife in the other.’ Hughes asked Chadwick if she ‘wanted [her] to use the knife on the dog.’ The officers knew none of this, though. Chadwick went outside to get $20 from her car, which is when the officers first saw her.”

Hughes sued Officer Kisela under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Kisela had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this appeal, the Court did not decide whether Officer Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment by his use of deadly force. Said the Court: “[E]ven assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—a proposition that is not at all evident—on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity.”

Officer Kisela shot Hughes because he believed she was a threat to Chadwick. “Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger to Chadwick. He was confronted with a woman who had just been seen hacking a tree with a large kitchen knife and whose behavior was erratic enough to cause a concerned bystander to call 911 and then flag down Kisela and Garcia. Kisela was separated from Hughes and Chadwick by a chain-link fence; Hughes had moved to within a few feet of Chadwick; and she failed to acknowledge at least two commands to drop the knife. Those commands were loud enough that Chadwick, who was standing next to Hughes, heard them.” In short, “Hughes was armed with a large knife; was within striking distance of Chadwick; ignored the officers’ orders to drop the weapon; and the situation unfolded in less than a minute.” Consequently, it does not appear that Officer Kisela violated “clearly established” law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

As held in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), the question whether an officer has used excessive force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must “embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”